An undefeated record v. a loss on the books

**Vladimir303** · 09-21-2007, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by mrrupo

"Perfect Records - Hey, that Oganov guy sure deserved a TV date, didn't he? No, not really. A guy (Fernando Zuniga) with two losses to good fighters sent the 26-0 guy with 26 kayos back home with his first loss. Yeah that undefeated record looks good initially, and might draw in uninitiated fans. However, excellent fighters like Kostya Tszyu and Marco Antonio Barrera became more complete boxers after their losses. There are exceptions to this rule, and right now Floyd Mayweather and Joe Calzaghe are it. A famous saying in sports is "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying." For boxing I would like to rephrase it, "If you ain't got a loss, you ain't trying.""

This is a subject that comes up on the board a lot and thought it would be a good thread. Most recently it came up in a discussion about floyd and in Viva mexicos ****** thread about warriors fighting injured.

I think floyd avoids certain fighters that would cause him problems, but I dont think it's entirely his fault. I think that a loss these days is detrimental to a fighter, for some inane reason. I mean, everyone wanted to right off cintron after the marg fight... what if that had happened? we would be missing out on an exciting fighter who has a bright future. back in the day a loss wasnt bad at all. Sugar Ray robinson lost, hearns lost, srl lost. why has it become such a big deal to have a loss? i would personally have a lot more respect for floyd if he stepped up his level of competition and lost a fight or two than i do for his hand picked bouts.

I like floyd, but i want to be able to say to my kids "i remember that fight! floyd v. cotto/cintron/mosley/marg was one of the most epic battles ive seen!" as of right now, i have not seen a mayweather fight worth talking about a year later, let alone ever being called a classic, and that is ashame, and not totally floyds fault.

Floyd can't afford to lose at this stage of his career. Maybe if he had lost early on in his career like hopkins or winky and then build it into a win streak over the years. Fact is floyd is more defensive because yes he is worried about his streak as was hopkins 20 title defenses and played it safe vs taylor who was stronger but not really a better fighter. Still I bet you he will fight the winner of cotto/mosley. That is if the winner wants him.

**Daredevil69** · 09-21-2007, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by mrrupo

"Perfect Records - Hey, that Oganov guy sure deserved a TV date, didn't he? No, not really. A guy (Fernando Zuniga) with two losses to good fighters sent the 26-0 guy with 26 kayos back home with his first loss. Yeah that undefeated record looks good initially, and might draw in uninitiated fans. However, excellent fighters like Kostya Tszyu and Marco Antonio Barrera became more complete boxers after their losses. There are exceptions to this rule, and right now Floyd Mayweather and Joe Calzaghe are it. A famous saying in sports is "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying." For boxing I would like to rephrase it, "If you ain't got a loss, you ain't trying.""

This is a subject that comes up on the board a lot and thought it would be a good thread. Most recently it came up in a discussion about floyd and in Viva mexicos ****** thread about warriors fighting injured.

I think floyd avoids certain fighters that would cause him problems, but I dont think it's entirely his fault. I think that a loss these days is detrimental to a fighter, for some inane reason. I mean, everyone wanted to right off cintron after the marg fight... what if that had happened? we would be missing out on an exciting fighter who has a bright future. back in the day a loss wasnt bad at all. Sugar Ray robinson lost, hearns lost, srl lost. why has it become such a big deal to have a loss? i would personally have a lot more respect for floyd if he stepped up his level of competition and lost a fight or two than i do for his hand picked bouts.

I like floyd, but i want to be able to say to my kids "i remember that fight! floyd v. cotto/cintron/mosley/marg was one of the most epic battles ive seen!" as of right now, i have not seen a mayweather fight worth talking about a year later, let alone ever being called a classic, and that is ashame, and not totally floyds fault.

Boxers' win-loss records doesn't matter anymore. It's how the fighters perform inside the ring. Look at Pacman, he has 3 loses, still he's number 2 P4P people's choice. He was chosen over the other boxers which has no loss in their records.

**mrrupo** · 09-21-2007, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by vladimir303

Floyd can't afford to lose at this stage of his career. Maybe if he had lost early on in his career like hopkins or winky and then build it into a win streak over the years. Fact is floyd is more defensive because yes he is worried about his streak as was hopkins 20 title defenses and played it safe vs taylor who was stronger but not really a better fighter. Still I bet you he will fight the winner of cotto/mosley. That is if the winner wants him.

You say he cant afford to lose... what does that mean? Monetarily? i agree his next pay day might be less, but doesnt he have enought money already?

Hearns couldnt afford to lose when he did, SRL couldnt afford to lose when he did, but it only made them better fighters and enhanced their careers. Floyd can afford to lose. I doubt anybody who really studies fighting would be down on floyd for a loss. he can afford to lose. unless he steps up his competition and steps outside his box, his name can never be mentioned with SRL, hearns, or hagler. he very well might have been better, but he never tried to show anybody. This was not supposed to be ANOTHER floyd thread, i just want to know what happened that made a loss so detrimental to a fighters career. i think this attitude is what stops a lot of great matchups from ever happening.

**Daredevil69** · 09-21-2007, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by mrrupo

You say he cant afford to lose... what does that mean? Monetarily? i agree his next pay day might be less, but doesnt he have enought money already?

Hearns couldnt afford to lose when he did, SRL couldnt afford to lose when he did, but it only made them better fighters and enhanced their careers. Floyd can afford to lose. I doubt anybody who really studies fighting would be down on floyd for a loss. he can afford to lose. unless he steps up his competition and steps outside his box, his name can never be mentioned with SRL, hearns, or hagler. he very well might have been better, but he never tried to show anybody. This was not supposed to be ANOTHER floyd thread, i just want to know what happened that made a loss so detrimental to a fighters career. i think this attitude is what stops a lot of great matchups from ever happening.

Floyd could not afford to lose because of his ego and pride. If he will lose, then how could he back up his statement " I am the greatest, forget about Leonard and the rest." How could he show his face on people after saying that?
I'm hoping for Hatton's win over Floyd though. HAHA

An undefeated record v. a loss on the books